While the tagline suggests that the resolution is about infinite dimensions AND a dimensional mind, I'm only really acknowledging the former, because in round one there was no clear "Full Resolution" but Pro did make it clear:"I argue infinite dimensions exist"This means that Con should be well aware of the resolution that counts here, and Con clearly is, which you'll see why in the rest of the RFD.

This also means that Pro has the burden of proof, because, I think of it like a court case.The suspect, infinite dimensions, is on trial for existing, and Pro's trying to prove him guilty of that. The prosecution, in a court case, has the burden of proof, and all the defense, Con in this case, has to do is indicate how the prosecution, Pro, fails to meet that burden.BoP is most certainly on Pro who is advancing a positive assertion, accusing the suspect of existing.

This burden is actually pretty massive though, given that infinity has to be shown, and the fact that Pro didn't provide definitions first round is *killing* his case, because the term "dimension" is unavoidably central to this resolution; it's the whole thing really.

What's more unfortunate for Pro is that Con pointed all of this out, not only leaving that massive burden on Pro's shoulders, but leaving the definition of "dimension" as a property of space or extension in a given direction, which is a generally accepted definition that, given no 1st round clarity on the term from Pro, leaves me basing my vote on the resolution:

"Infinite properties of space or extension in a given direction exist."

*Pro's Case*

1. Similar to how color was undetected until animals evolved ways to detect it, other dimensions could be undetected now, but we could adapt to understand them.

*Con doesn't address this directly, but points out that detection of color/sound/depth is a product of 3 dimensions and physiology, negating a need for any more dimensions.

2. Dreams, since they are said to be have prophetic/psychological/chronicle properties, show potential of the mind, how deep it can go, so we may evolve a way to sense further depth i.e. a further dimension.

*Con points out that dreams are not representative of reality, and dreams are anecdotal thus unconfirmed to have said abilities and this mitigates the resolution.

3. Dreams show promise, and we may be able to harness the dream ability and tie it into the physical world.

*Con mitigated "dream ability" by showing that dreams have shown no evidence of ability in reality, so I need not consider dreams to have abilities, unless Pro can respond to this.

4. Our ego and the spirit of nature are dimensional.

*Con never directly addresses this, but it is a bare assertion that Pro made no attempt to substantiate or prove...it also makes no sense to me literally...I don't know what Pro is saying here, it's not convincing either.

5. Since there is color and time, higher dimensions might be critical to our ability.

*Con showed that color was a product of 3 dimensional physiology, which is where all of our abilities are, negating a need for higher dimensional ability.

8. Depth has color, color has depth, humans are bonded to color, we may one day "know what colors mean" as we know about depth.

*Con doesn't address this either, and I don't see how one could...Pro was extremely unclear here and I'm really lost on this point.

9. we can't measure color.

*Con dropped this, but without further explanation from Pro, this, even true, wouldn't impact the resolution...why would inability to measure --> infinite dimensions? Con pointed out the irrelevancy anyway.

10. infinite dimensions-->dimensional network-->our universe-->our theorizing of dimensional logic = any dimension could cohere to every aspect of our universe.

*Pro claims that the BoP does not rest on his shoulders, rather the BoD or burden of dreams does...not only does this fly in the face of Pro's first round, it's a shifting of the burden of proof really, and Con points this out later in the debate.Dude, Pro, burden of dreams? I did laugh when I read that, no offense.

2. All objects in the universe can be explained sufficiently with 3 dimensions.

*Dropped by Pro

3. Dreams are anecdotal, thus not confirmed and are usually not representative of reality.

*Pro concedes this, b/c he says dreams are a "hard problem."*This really hurts Pro's case because he agrees that dreams can't be confirmed, which was one of the main reasons to buy this resolution...Pro stated "dreams are evidence, but they are evidence that, as Con said, cannot be confirmed."Since Pro had asked voters to put the burden of dreams on Pro, Pro admits he doesn't meet this burden...hugely detrimental to Pro's case.

4. Dreams don't prove infinite dimensions at all.

*Pro admits "I stated that dreams show promise of the mind, not that dreams proves infinite dimensions" so Pro tells us here that dreams *don't* prove infinite dimensions, and I could just vote Con here, b/c that's Pro's evidence destroyed by Pro himself...massive misstep by Pro here.

* Pro admits " I have no proof that this will be the case," so again, Pro negates his own case...

6. Color and depth are understood perfectly within the 3 dimension...wavelengths of light, binocular vision.

*Pro says here " I have made a stark claim without any evidence" which makes me dismiss EVERYTHING Pro has claimed about all of this, and this makes Con's job complete...there's really no way to come back here for Pro.

7. Pro doesn't show how there's more to the 3 dimensions than we think.

*Pro even agrees that about color and depth's dimensions "Con quite correctly stated are threefold." again a huge concession that 3 dimensions, not infinite ones, are sufficient.

8. Pro is sufficiently lacking in evidence.

*Pro agrees that Pro has been "avoiding the evidence-heavy argument I have predicted." Yet another negation by Pro.

*Vote*

I'm not going into any more points of this debate, because Pro has negated this resolution for Con over and over again, and Con has done more than enough to point out the sufficient lack of evidence and clarity linking any of Pro's points to the resolution and Pro conceded all of them.

Pro also popped out this little gem "...infinite dimensions, is critical to this debate; it's not that they do exist..."

Pro has not only conceded that he's provided no evidence, he's also conceded that detecting color and depth is 3 dimensional, that Pro himself lacks evidence, that dreams aren't reliable confirmed evidence, AND, as clear as day, Pro concedes that "it's not that higher dimensions exist"

Given the concessions by Pro, and the indications by Con, this is a clear vote for Con on arguments.No sources, no grammar problems, no conduct violations.

Pro just never really had a complete case and the concessions destroyed anything he might have had.

You have misinterpreted almost every section of my argument that you have listed, and you've been biased.

An example of how it lacks RFD is like me saying, in this post you made, you said "the sky is red", and on that basis, you're incorrect.

A more in depth analysis on why this vote should be void.

The argument was dimensional mind and infinite dimensions, so clearly your vote is void.

What am I arguing for if I say dreams show promise, or that colour is a higher dimension? That's not infinite dimensions I'm arguing for, that's a possible route of evolution for our dimensional minds, that I'm arguing for.

Apply that logic to every one of his statements (misinterpretation), and acknowledge the bias (to Con; who misinterpreted as well) in every one of his conclusions.